Papal Primacy: A Stumbling Block for Christians

For over 1500 years the pope in Rome has claimed authority over the entire Christian church. That claim has been a source of controversy and division. Is Jesus responsible for the division?

by Paul Kieffer
August 19, 2011

The papal throne at the Vatican in Rome has
been a source of division among Christians.

When Josef Ratzinger was elected Pope
Benedict XVI in 2005, Germans joked that his selection as pope
was proof that God had finally forgiven the German people for
having produced Martin Luther and the Lutheran church. The
reference to the schism that occurred in the Roman Catholic
church in the 16th century as a result of Luther's influence is
a narrow view concerning church schisms. In reality schisms
occurred within the Catholic church for centuries prior to
Luther having nailed his 95 theses to the door of a church in
Wittenberg, Germany.

One of those earlier schisms separated the Roman church from
the Eastern Orthodox Church. Talks between the Roman Catholic
and the Eastern Orthodox churches have been ongoing for over 30
years as part of the ecumenical movement. With over one billion
and 300 million members respectively, these two churches
comprise a majority of today's professing Christians.

Upon assuming his office six years ago, Pope Benedict XVI
voiced support for continuing the theological dialogue between
his church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, in 2009
the "rapprochement" between the two denominations seemed to
reach an impasse. At their meeting in Cyprus in 2009 and last
year in Vienna theologians from both sides were unable to agree
on one aspect of doctrine. Which doctrine was it? The doctrine
that Pope Paul VI once called a "stumbling block" for church
unity: the position of the papacy in the church.

The Roman pope's claim to be the leader of the Christian
church is not only a stumbling block for the ecumenical process
between Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is the
main topic of dissension in all ecumenical dialogue between the
Roman Catholic church and other denominations. Another example
would be the Lutheran church, which disagrees with Catholics
"on whether papal primacy is necessary for the church or just
represents a possible function." The Lutheran viewpoint is that
the office of the pope is not part of the basic composition of
the church ("Das Evangelium und die Kirche," No. 67,
Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung. Sämtliche
Berichte und Konsenstexte interkonfessioneller Gespräche
auf Weltebene, Vol. I, 1931-1982, H. Meyer, editor,
Paderborn, 1991; our translation).

Rome's viewpoint on the papacy was confirmed in July 2007 in
a Vatican document titled "Responses to Some Questions
Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church." The
paper restated the Vatican position that the Roman Catholic
Church is the only church with a continuous apostolic
succession dating back to Jesus Christ and the apostle Peter.
Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church
established by Jesus. The 2007 statement repeated the Vatican's
controversial claims made in a doctrinal paper published eleven
years ago, "Dominus Iesus."

Pope Benedict's position is that apostolic-papal succession
is an important key to identifying the true church. A Roman
Catholic "sister church" is therefore a denomination that can
trace its roots back to Peter as the supposed first pope, but
is currently separated from the Roman Catholic Church as a
result of an earlier schism. In the Vatican's view, one church
in this category would be the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The statement released in July 2007 clarifies another aspect
of the Second Vatican Council: For the Catholic Church, the
word ecumenical means movement on the part of the
others. There won't be a restoration of Christian
denominational unity with Catholics and other denominations
meeting halfway. Instead, if there is to be unity,
non-Catholics will meet the Vatican on its terms by recognizing
papal authority. According to the Vatican, by not recognizing
the pope "these venerable Christian communities lack something
in their condition as particular churches" ("Responses to Some
Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the
Church"). Papal primacy will continue to be a stumbling block
in the ecumenical process.

The Roman-Catholic claim of church-wide authority for the
pope is based on the belief that the apostle Peter was the
first bishop of Rome and that Jesus appointed Peter to be human
leader of the New Testament church.

Was Peter ever in Rome?

Was Peter really the first bishop of Rome? According to
Roman Catholic tradition, the apostle Peter went to Rome about
ten years after Jesus was crucified and preached the gospel in
Rome for many years. "It is an indisputably established
historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last
portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by
martyrdom" (Catholic Encyclopedia, keyword "St. Peter,
Prince of the Apostles").

Whether Peter was really the first bishop of Rome is
therefor a fundamental issue for the Roman Catholic church's
claim to papal authority. However, even Catholic sources admit
that the details of Peter's supposed stay in Rome are unclear:
"As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman
capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there,
the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of
his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and
can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded"
(ibid.).

In the Bible commentary Lexikon zur Bibel, German
editor Fritz Rienecker writes: "There is no evidence for
the viewpoint that Peter was the 'Bishop of Rome' for 25 years"
(R. Brockhaus Verlag, Wuppertal, 1977, keyword "Peter"; our
emphasis and translation).

More importantly, what does the Bible say? Does the Bible
indicate that Peter was in Rome from 41 to 66 AD? Quite the
opposite – the Bible offers no support for the Catholic
assertion.

• The Jerusalem conference (Acts 15) took place in 49 AD
Peter was among the "apostles and elders" who were to decide
the issue of circumcision for Gentile Christians (verse 2).
Peter was not in Rome at this time.

• Some time after the Jerusalem conference Peter visited
Paul in Antioch (Galatians 2:11). He was not in Rome, although
he was already supposed to have been in Rome for some ten years
by this time.

• In 55 AD the apostle Paul wrote to the Christians in
Rome. At the end of his epistle to the Romans he extends
greetings to 27 people, but he doesn't mention Peter at all.
Did he forget to greet the first bishop of Rome, thereby
insulting him and likely shocking his readers?

• When the apostle Paul arrived in Rome about 60 AD to
have his case heard by Caesar, he asked to speak to the leaders
of the local Jewish community in Rome (Acts 28:17-22). They
responded: "We desire to hear from you what you think; for
concerning this sect, we know that it is spoken against
everywhere" (verse 22). If Peter had already been in Rome for
some 20 years preaching the gospel, would the leaders of the
Jewish community been unfamiliar with the teachings of "this
sect?"

• At about the time the apostle Paul died, Peter wrote
that he was in Babylon (1 Peter 5:13). As the apostle to
the circumcision, Peter was ministering to the large Jewish
community in Babylon instead of being in Rome.

The Bible refutes the Catholic tradition that Peter went to
Rome some ten years after Jesus' crucifixion, removing one of
the two pillars that supposedly prove apostolic-papal
succession.

Did Jesus appoint Peter as the first
pope?

Roman Catholic commentaries claiming that Peter was the
first pope are unanimous in referring to Matthew 16:18 as proof
that Jesus appointed Peter as the first pope: "And I also say
to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My
church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against
it."

According to the Roman Catholic church, Peter is the "rock"
upon which Jesus built His church. But does this verse really
say that Peter was appointed as the first pope? Did Jesus
institute a pyramidal structure within His church with one man
at the top of the pyramid?

An important principle in understanding the Bible is to view
verses in their original context. The context of Jesus'
statement to Peter is a question that Jesus had asked His
disciples: "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" (verse
13). Jesus' disciples told Him what popular opinion was: Jesus
was considered to be John the Baptist resurrected, Elijah,
Jeremiah or one of the other prophets (verse 14).

Then He asked them: "But who do you say that I am?" (verse
15). Peter answered Jesus' question: "You are the Christ, the
Son of the living God. Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed
are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed
this to you, but My Father who is in heaven" (verses
16-17).

Jesus then responded to Peter's confession of faith: "And I
also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will
build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail
against it" (verse 18). Jesus is obviously talking about the
founding of His church (ekklesia in Greek) in verse 18.
But what was is it supposed to be built upon?

First, we need to take a closer look at the Greek text of
verse 18. God inspired the New Testament to be preserved in the
Greek language. The Greek text in verse 18 uses two different
words for "Peter" and "rock." "Peter is 'petros' in Greek, but
rock is 'petra.' Petros means a stone or part of the
rock. Petra is the rock itself. Therefore, this verse
does not provide the slightest reason for the doctrine that the
church is built upon Peter and that Peter is the head of the
church" ("76 answers to questions on the subject of the
'assembly of God' ", No. 22, from Vorträge von H. L.
Heijkoop 1968-1973, CSV-Verlag, Hückeswagen, 1975;
original emphasis, our translation).

Who, then, is the rock in verse 18 that Jesus will build His
church upon? "Peter (Petros, masc.) was strong
like a rock, but Jesus added that on this rock
(petra, fem.) He would build His church. Because of this
change in Greek words, many conservative scholars believe that
Jesus is now building His church on Himself . . .
other scholars say that the church is built on Peter's
testimony ['You are the Christ, the Son of the living God']. It
seems best to understand that Jesus was praising Peter for his
accurate statement about Him, and was introducing His work of
building the church on Himself" (The Bible Knowledge
Commentary: The New Testament, John F. Walvoord and Roy B.
Zuck, editors, David C. Cook, Colorado Springs, CO., 1983, p.
57; original emphasis).

Some may object to this viewpoint with the argument that
Jesus most likely spoke to Peter in Aramaic which does not have
a similar distinction like the difference between petros
and petra in Greek. The fact is, though, that the text
of the New Testament was not preserved for us in Aramaic. Greek
is the language that was used to preserve the inspired text of
the New Testament, and the distinction between petros
and petra does exist in Greek.

One can imagine how Jesus might have gestured in responding
to Peter: "You are Peter (pointing to Peter), and on this rock
(pointing to Himself) I will build My church, and the gates of
Hades shall not prevail against it."

The testimony of Peter

How did Peter understand what Jesus said to him? In giving
account to the Sanhedrin for the healing of the lame man at the
entrance to the temple, Peter emphasized the foundation of the
church, Jesus Christ: "Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said
to them, Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: If we this
day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what
means he has been made well, let it be known to you all, and to
all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by
Him this man stands here before you whole.

"This is the stone which was rejected by you
builders, which has become the chief corner­stone.
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name
under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts
4:8-12; unless noted otherwise, all scriptural emphasis
added).

Peter associates the "chief cornerstone" with the knowledge
that salvation is possible only through Jesus Christ. Some 30
years later he again referred to this foundation:

"Coming to Him [Jesus] as to a living stone, rejected
indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as
living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy
priest­hood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to
God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the
Scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief
cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him
will by no means be put to shame. Therefore, to you who
believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, the
stone which the builders rejected has become the chief
cornerstone and a stone of stumbling and a rock of
offense" (1 Peter 2:4-8).

Nowhere does Peter ever claim that Matthew 16:18 refers to
him as the head of the church, nor does he ever lay claim to
this office in his dealings with the other apostles and elders.
Just the opposite is true – he calls himself a fellow
elder and emphasizes the need for all elders to be humble: "The
elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow
elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a
partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock
of God which is among you . . . Likewise you younger
people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be
submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility,
for God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble"
(1. Petrus 5:1-2, 5).

Addition instead of subtraction

Another important principle in understanding the Bible is
to consider all verses on a subject instead of ignoring
those passages that might not conform to one's own personal
opinion. This principle helps to clarfiy whether Matthew 16:18
means that Jesus appointed Peter to be first pope.

A few months after Peter's confession of faith Jesus' death
was imminent. On the evening prior to His death the disciples
argued over which of them was the greatest: "Now there was also
a dispute among them, as to which of them should be
considered the greatest. And He said to them, The kings of
the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who
exercise authority over them are called benefactors. But not
so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among
you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who
serves. For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who
serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you
as the One who serves" (Luke 22:24-27).

Jesus compared the mentality of his disciples in arguing
over greatness to that of worldly leaders who are concerned
about their position and power. It follows, then, that the
disciples were arguing over position. Another indication is the
fact that the word in the Greek original is the same word used
to describe Jesus' position vis-à-vis His heavenly
father: "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).

If Jesus had appointed Peter to be the head of the church
just months earlier – in the presence of the other
apostles – then why were the disciples arguing about
position? It should have been clear to them who was in charge!
If not, Jesus could have used the argument as an opportunity to
clarify who would be the human leader of His church.

We also search the New Testament in vain for other
scriptures that confirm the Roman Catholic interpretation of
Matthew 16:18. Instead, the New Testament refers either to
Jesus or the apostles as a group in describing the foundation
of the church.

In comparing the work of elders to master builders, Paul
identifies Jesus as the foundation of the church: "For we are
God's fellow workers; you are God's field, you are God's
building. According to the grace of God which was given to me,
as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and
another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds
on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that
which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians
3:9-11).

In the same epistle Paul says that Jesus was the rock that
accompanied the Israelites on their wilderness journeys:
"Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all
our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea,
all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all
ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual
drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock
[petra in Greek] that followed them, and that
Rock [petra in Greek] was Christ"
(1 Corinthians 10:1-4).

Paul also writes that Christ, the prophets and the apostles
as a group – not just Peter – are the foundation of
fellowship for Jewish and Gentile Christians: "Now,
there­fore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but
fellow citizens with the saints and members of the
house­hold of God, having been built on the foundation
of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself
being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building,
being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord"
(Ephesians 2:19-21).

The book of Revelation also describes the apostles as a
group being the symbolic foundation of the church: "Now the
wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the
names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Revelation 21:14).
Once again, Peter is not given preeminence over the other
apostles.

The testimony of the apostle Paul

The apostle Paul's conversion highlights God's power to
influence human beings and call those whom He chooses to call.
Saul was on his way to Damascus to persecute Christians when he
was struck down and then baptized three days later. Jesus
revealed the commission He intended the apostle Paul to
fulfill: "He is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before
Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15).

After being baptized Paul apparently spent three years in
Arabia before returning to Jerusalem for the first time after
his conversion (Galatians 1:17-18). During those three years he
received personal instruction from Jesus Christ: "But I make
known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by
me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man,
nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of
Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12).

Paul's personal training by Christ was similar to that of
the original apostles, who spent 3½ years with Christ
during His personal ministry. When the three years in Arabia
were over, Paul traveled to Jerusalem. The apostles and
congregation there initially doubted his conversion: "When Saul
had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; but they
were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a
disciple" (Acts 9:26).

However, Barnabas intervened on Paul's behalf. "But Barnabas
took him and brought him to the apostles. And he declared to
them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had
spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in
the name of Jesus" (verse 27). During this visit to Jerusalem
Paul met Peter and James (Galatians 1:18-19).

Fourteen years after his first post-conversion visit to
Jerusalem, Paul again journeyed to Jerusalem to receive
confirmation for his preaching of the gospel among the
Gentiles. "I went up by revelation, and communicated to them
that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to
those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or
had run, in vain" (Galatians 2:2).

Paul summarized the result of this meeting in Jerusalem:
"From those who seemed to be something – whatever
they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal
favoritism to no man – for those who seemed to be
something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when
they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been
committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to
Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the
apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me
toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who
seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been
given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of
fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the
circumcised" (Galatians 2:6-9).

Paul tells us that the office he received to preach to the
Gentiles was the equivalent of the office that Peter had
received to preach to the circumcision. Paul's description also
shows he was unable to recognize Peter as the "chief apostle."
Instead, he was one of three leading apostles whom Paul called
pillars. In listing those three leading apostles, Paul did not
even list Peter – "Cephas" – first: "James, Cephas
and John." Paul likely had these three apostles in mind when he
mentioned "the most eminent apostles" (2 Corinthians
11:13; 12:11).

Over half of the book of Acts – our only biblical
source for detailed early church history – is dedicated
to Paul's ministry. Paul wrote 13 of the 27 books in the New
Testament (14 if he was also the author of Hebrews) while
Peter wrote two epistles. Paul contributed ten times more
text to the New Testament than Peter. Our access to New
Testament church doctrine rests largely on the foundation
of Paul's writings, not Peter's.

If Peter really was the chief apostle of the early church,
then it is remarkable that God did not reveal to him that Paul
had been converted and given a special commission by Jesus
Himself. Even more remarkable is the fact that Jesus did not
teach Paul about the existing structure of the church with its
highest human office that Jesus supposedly had given to Peter.
Jesus apparently never explained to Paul that He was building
His church on Peter.

The apostles working as a team

The apostles and elders of the early church did not operate
within a strict hierarchy. Instead, we see examples of them
working together as a team.

When the church in Jerusalem had grown to the point where
the apostles could no longer accomplish the daily distribution
of food to needy widows, they – not Peter –
suggested a solution to the church. "The twelve summoned the
multitude of the disciples and said, It is not desirable
that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.
Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good
reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may
appoint over this business; but we will give ourselves
continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word. And
the saying pleased the whole multitude" (Acts 6:2-5).

One of the seven men chosen by the congregation, Philip,
later went to Samaria and preached the gospel there: "Philip
went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them.
And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by
Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did" (Acts
8:5-6).

Philip was the first to preach the gospel in Samaria, so the
apostles in Jerusalem sent additional support. Once again the
decision was not made by Peter, but by the apostles as a team:
"Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that
Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and
John to them" (Acts 8:14). In this instance Peter was
actually dispatched to Samaria by his apostle colleagues.

The Jerusalem conference of 49 AD is perhaps the most
interesting example of teamwork among the apostles and elders.
The conference was convened to discuss the claim of some Jewish
Christians that the Gentiles had to be circumcised in order to
be saved: "And certain men came down from Judea [to Antioch]
and taught the brethren, Unless you are circumcised according
to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1).

Paul and Barnabas debated the issue with the Jewish
Christians but were unable to resolve the issue. So the church
at Antioch decided to have the apostles and elders in Jerusalem
hear the matter: "When Paul and Barnabas had no small
dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and
Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem,
to the apostles and elders, about this question" (verse
2). Note that they did not ask Peter to render a decision!

When Paul and Barnabas arrived in Jerusalem, some Pharisees
who had become believers repeated the demand that the Gentiles
be circumcised: "Some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed
rose up, saying, It is necessary to circumcise them, and to
command them to keep the law of Moses. Now the apostles and
elders came together to consider this matter" (verses
5-6).

Peter described his experience with Cornelius and gave his
opinion (verses 7-11) and Paul and Barnabas reported on their
work among the Gentiles (verse 12). But it was James, the
brother of the Lord and the pastor of the Jerusalem church,
whose summary conclusion on circumcision was adopted by the
apostles and elders. "And after they had become silent, James
answered, saying, Men and brethren, listen to me
. . . I judge that we should not trouble those
from among the Gentiles who are turning to God" (verses 15,
19).

The apostles and elders were "of one accord" in rendering
the decision and communicating it to the Gentile Christians in
Antioch. The consensus among the apostles mirrored their
function as part of the foundation of the New Testament church
(Ephesians 2:20).

Wasn't Peter a leader among his peers?

The apostles worked together as a team, and Peter was
obviously a leader in their midst. There is little doubt that
Peter's forceful personality was a strong influence among his
colleagues. Peter was usually the first to take action (even if
a bit rashly on occasion), to answer Christ's questions and to
walk on water. It was Peter who proposed selecting a
replacement for Judas, who led the preaching on the Day of
Pentecost, who addressed the lame beggar and called in faith on
Christ to heal him, who condemned Ananias' and Sapphira's
deception and Simon the sorcerer's attempt to buy an
office.

"We know Simon Peter was the leader of the apostles –
and not only from the fact that his name heads every list of
the Twelve. We also have the explicit statement of Matthew
10:2: 'Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first,
Simon, who is called Peter.' The word translated 'first' in
that verse is the Greek term protos. It doesn't refer to
the first in a list; it speaks of the chief, the leader of the
group. Peter's leadership is further evident in the way he
normally acts as spokesman for the whole group. He is always in
the foreground, taking the lead. He seems to have had a
naturally dominant personality, and the Lord put it to good use
among the Twelve" (Twelve Ordinary Men, John
MacArthur, Nelson Books, Nashville, TN, 2002, p. 45; emphasis
added).

Many commentaries and dictionaries agree on Matthew 10:2
that protos here means something akin to prominent or
chief, which Peter was in many respects. Jesus knew that
Peter's dominant personality also provided leadership
potential, which He expected him to use it in supporting his
fellow apostles: "The Lord said, Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan
has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have
prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you
have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren" (Luke
22:31-32).

As this article shows, however, Jesus did not appoint Peter
to be the "chief apostle" or give him papal authority. For
example, Peter was by no means infallible. Shortly after Jesus
announced that He would build His church, He had to sternly
rebuke Peter for a wrong attitude about Jesus' impending
suffering and death:

"From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He
must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders
and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the
third day. Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him,
saying, Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!
But He turned and said to Peter, Get behind Me, Satan! You
are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of
God, but the things of men" (Matthew 16:21-23).

On another occasion Peter's fallibility was evident when
Paul rebuked him publicly for refusing to eat with Gentile
Christians in Antioch: "Now when Peter had come to Antioch,
I withstood him to his face, because he was to be
blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would
eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and
separated himself, fearing those who were of the
circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the
hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with
their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not
straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to
Peter before them all . . ." (Galatians
2:11-14). If Peter was the chief apostle, then it seems odd
that he would be concerned about his behaviour in Antioch being
reported to James.

Some view Matthew 16:19 as proof that Peter was given
special authority: "I [Jesus] will give you [Peter] the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be
bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed
in heaven." As The New Bible Dictionary points out,
"Peter received these powers first, as he also received the
pastoral commission to feed Christ's flock (Jn. 21:15), but he
did so in a representative, rather than in a personal,
capacity; for when the commission is repeated in Mt. 18:18,
authority to exercise the ministry of reconciliation is vested
in the body of disciples as a whole, and it is the faithful
congregation, rather than any individual, which acts in
Christ's name to open the kingdom to believers and to close it
against unbelief. None the less, this authoritative function is
primarily exercised by preachers of the word, and the process
of sifting, of conversion and rejection, is seen at work from
Peter's first sermon onward (Acts 2:37-41)" (I. Howard
Marshall, editor, InterVarsity Press, 1996).

The Jerusalem conference of 49 AD does not support the
viewpoint that Peter was the highest authority in a pyramidal
church structure. If Peter was the only one to receive
authority to bind and loosen, then there would not have been
any need to convene a conference to render judgment on the
issue of circumcision. Peter could have decided it himself. It
was also James, not Peter, who proposed the solution that was
adopted by the assembled apostles and elders.

Peter was the primus inter pares, the first among
equals, a leader among the original apostles, but without
judicial or governmental authority over his peers. He was a
highly respected apostle and the holy spirit worked mightily
through him. However, we find no evidence in the Bible that he
was the chief apostle, nor did he ever claim that position for
himself.

Rome's position in the early church

In reviewing the position of the papacy as part of the
ongoing ecumenical dialogue the Eastern Orthodox Church desires
a differentiation between the first and second Christian
millennia. The reason is obvious: the claim to papal authority
over the entire Christian church cannot be traced back
continuously to the beginning of the Christian era.

The civil structure of the Roman Empire provided the pattern
for the early Roman state church with its five primary sees
(districts). The Roman see or district comprised the entire
area of the western Roman Empire. Theologians representing the
Eastern Orthodox Church readily agree that the Roman district
had an "honorary primacy" or a "primacy of love" among the five
districts. However, it was an "honorary primacy" in the sense
of primus inter pares ("the first among equals") instead
of being a primacy of high judicial or governmental rank over
the other four sees.

The Eastern Orthodox viewpoint concerning the early
relationship among the five districts of the Roman state church
is similar to the conclusions reached by knowledgeable Bible
scholars concerning the relationship of Peter to his fellow
apostles. "If we look into the New Testament with an open mind,
we find a totally different approach to government than what
has developed in the Church. This different approach affected
the way the early brethren and ministers interacted with each
other, and the way they handled disagreements . . .
Frankly there was never – in the New Testament Church
– any example of a 'Moses figure' or a 'Pope Peter' who
towered over the other apostles and elders . . . You
do find that Peter took the lead among the original twelve
apostles and was acknowledged – although this is never
directly stated – as the main speaker and leader.

"For Christ used Peter to preach the main sermon on
Pentecost (Acts 2), heal the crippled man outside the Temple
(Acts 3), open the 'door of faith' to the Gentiles (Acts 10),
etc. But you do not find him giving orders to the other
apostles, sending them on missions, or in any way 'lording it
over' them . . . Peter was not the Pope! He never
unilaterally decided any of those basic matters in the New
Testament Church!" (Church Government and Church Unity,
Roderick C. Meredith, 1993, pp. 10-12).

Rome's claim to authority over the other districts was not
the only change that occurred many years after the first
generation of Christians had departed the scene. Today's
Roman-Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 justifying
Peter's papal office was also a later development. Eusebius of
Caesarea, known as the father of church history, mentions
Matthew 16:18 in his commentary on the Psalms. Eusebius
interprets the verse to mean that Christ is the rock upon which
the church is founded, agreeing with Paul's clear statements in
1 Corinthians 3:11 and Ephesians 2:20 ("Commentaria in
Psalmos", PG 23, col. 173, 176). Eusebius' commentary is
noteworthy because his opinion as an influential Catholic
theologian likely represents his church's teaching at the
beginning of the 4th century AD

More than 100 years later, though, Pope Leo I (440-461 AD)
used Matthew 16:18 to claim authority over the entire church.
Using Roman law to bolster his position, he made himself legal
heir to the apostle Peter. The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD)
recognized Constantinople as a "see of honor" without
acknowledging papal authority over the see. As a result, two
years passed before Leo I accepted the Council's decrees.

Leo's successors continued to claim legal jurisdiction over
the entire church. Relations between Constantinople and Rome
became increasingly strained, leading to the infamous schism
between the eastern and western churches in 1054 AD that
remains to this day. The origin of the schism is found in the
different interpretations of Matthew 16:18 by the Roman
Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches.

"By their fruits shall you know them"

In the sermon on the mount Jesus emphasizes an important key
in evaluating situations and people: "A good tree cannot bear
bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that
does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Therefore by their fruits you will know them" (Matthew
7:18-20).

What is the fruit produced by the Roman Catholic claim that
the pope is the leader of the Christian church? For more than
1500 years that claim has been a source of division among
professing Christians. Christians should be wary of those who
cause division in their ranks, because God hates "one who sows
discord among brethren" (Proverbs 6:17). They should be
especially wary of those who attempt to add to scripture
(Revelation 22:18) by forcing the Bible to fit their personal
ideas on church government.

It should be no surprise that striving for the preeminence
among Christians is a source of controversy. The same thing
happened when Jesus' disciples argued over greatness: "An
argument broke out among the disciples as to which one of
them should be thought of as the greatest" (Luke 22:24; Good
News Bible). Jesus corrected His disciples by letting them know
how God views greatness: "The greatest one among you must be
like the youngest, and the leader must be like the servant"
(verse 26; ibid.).

The apostles and elders of the New Testament took Jesus'
exhortation to heart. Their relationship was characterized by
teamwork instead of disputes over authority. "The entire
approach of the original apostles and elders was not: 'Who's in
Charge here? I'd better go along or they may fire me!' Rather,
the approach was – as Peter himself later wrote, 'All of
you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility'
(1 Peter 5:5)" (Meredith, op. cit., p. 12).

Jesus Christ is the rock – the great immoveable
foundation – upon which the true church of God is built.
Those who seek to follow His example of humility and service
instead of claiming to be the human leader of the church
contribute to unity in the body of Christ.